Modernity, Desecularization and Religious Pluralism

Discussions about the role of religion in public life are quite common  here in the Hexagon.  And that's a bit surprising when you consider that this is a country where church attendance is dropping (to the delight of the secularists and to the dismay of the Catholic church) and where other religions only make up a small percentage of believers.  For all the concern about Moslems, they are barely 5% of the religously affiliated. The numbers are even lower for Protestant Christians (3%)  and Jews (1%).

A solid majority of French (64% in 2009) self-identify as Roman Catholics compared to 81% in 1952.  The  number of those who actually attend Mass regularly (the messalisants) is down to about 4%; it was 27% in 1952.  The number of individual sans religion has been slowly growing - it was 21% in 1987 and it was 28% in 2009.

You can read more about those numbers and what's behind them in this analysis from IFOP:  Le catholicisme en France en 2009.

France is not the world.  What happens here is not even necessarily representative of Europe, a region with enormous diversity.  The most we can say is that France has some influence in the matter of religion versus the state and public life which one can see reflected in the current political fight over the proposed Quebec Charter.

I approach the topic of religion in France, in the United States and in the world with a great deal of curiosity.  On one hand I am a believing Roman Catholic but I was raised in a country where Catholicism is not the majority religion.  In my home country, the U.S. the separation of church and state (in many ways even stronger than in France) has led to a lively religious pluralism and a majority of croyants of many different faiths.  In France that didn't happen.  True, the religous landscape here is slightly more pluralist than in times past but this has not led to an explosion of faith among the population here.  On the contrary, it feels (and this is a purely subjective feeling on my part) a lot like the choice is binary:  Catholicism or nothing. A very limited religious menu.

And the question I had to ask myself, of course, was which country is the outlier:  France or the U.S.?  If we lift up our heads from our purely local view, do we see a religious decline or do we see a resurgence of faith in the world?

Peter Berger argues for the latter in his introduction a very nice volume of essays entitled The Desecularization of the World:  Resurgent Religion and World Politics.  Berger is a very well-known sociologist and he's written a number of books about the sociology of religion. After reading a MacArthur Foundation report about religious fundamentalism, Berger had an epiphany - this million dollar report which tried to shed light on religion and anti-progressive forces in the world instead seemed to show that religion was not only alive and well but actually growing in many parts of the world.  Not just in places that were "backward" but in places that were fully engaged in becoming modern developed countries.  The idea that somehow "progress" requires (or automatically leads to) a decline in religious expression is not consistent with the facts.  Berger came to this conclusion:

"My point is that the assumption that we live in a secular world is false.  The world today, with some exception to which I will come presently, is as furiously religious as it ever was, and in some places more so than ever.  This means that a whole body of literature by historians and social scientist loosely labeled 'secularization theory' is essentially mistaken."

That may be going a bit too far.  Jose Casanova qualifies this statement by pointing that there are three separate ideas that can be pulled out from the overall argument about secularization and modernity:

1. Separation of church and state.  A legal framework that keeps religion out of the business of the state and vice versa.
2.  A decline of religious belief and practices like church attendance or baptisms or marriages in the synagogue.
3.  Attempts to remove religion from ALL public spheres so that it no longer is part of the public discourse whether we are talking about politics and/or the pressing moral questions of our time.

If what we call secularism is simply separation of church and state then, yes, most (not all) modern states do this and the U.S. is, in this respect, just as secular as France (perhaps even more so since the US, with one exception, does not permit religious holiday to be public holidays and does not subsidize religious schools).

It's the other two that are more problematic.  Clearly, the separation of church and state in many countries did not lead to a decline in religious observance.  Instead it created a world where there's a kind of marketplace of faith where people can and do change their religious affiliation as they please.  It may be that because the churches must compete for members, they tend to be a bit louder and a lot more visible.  It's not Mormon or nothing or Catholicism or nothing or Islam or nothing, it's a broad range of churches, mosques and synogogues with different ideas and dogmas.  Is this religious pluralism exceptional?  Not really.  Looking at South America or Africa or even Asia what we see today alongside the traditional religions is increasing pluralism and a change in religious affiliation.  Brazil, secular since 1891 in the church/state sense, was traditionally Catholic but now has many converts to evangelical and pentacostal churches.  Something similar seems to be happening in Mexico.  In Taiwan, the top 3 religions were Buddhism, Taoism and Christianity and 81% of the 23 million people on that island belong to one of these or other sects.

So what's up with Europe?  Even here it's not entirely clear.  Grace Davie (and her book Religion in Modern Europe is next up on my to-read list) takes a shot at interpreting some interesting data from the 1990's.  What we can say is that Europe does have a common Christian heritage whether we're talking about France, Poland, Germany or any other of the 28 countries in the EU.  Looking at the European Values Study she sees evidence that Western Europeans are "unchurched" and yet though their participation has dropped, they have not abandoned completely their religious inclinations.  When asked about such things as belief in God, a soul after death, heaven and other things of a supernatural nature, a surprising number of Europeans (even in very secular countries) said they did believe in these things.  In France 57% indicated a belief in a higher power - the lowest of all the countries polled but still a significant number.  All the other countries ranged from around 60 to 90+%.  However, France is an outlier in the sense that it does have a higher percentage of individual who are not affiliated with any religion whatsoever.

Is it because there is the large minority (and, yes, the unaffiliated are still in the minority) that calls for a more complete secularization of French society are so strident and so invested in removing all traces of religion from the public sphere?  Maybe.  But the argument that somehow all this is an indication that France is a more modern nation as a result, just doesn't hold water. Other perfectly modern countries are still quite religious and that doesn't seem to prevent them from being successful.

Other explanations will have to be found and one place I would look is in the area of religious pluralism.  Starting from the fact that separation of church and state is pretty widespread in most modern democratic nation-states, why is it that France, unlike countries like the US, Canada and Brazil,  does not have much religious diversity?  Where is the marketplace of faith?  That it doesn't exist here (and you can argue with that proposition) says that there is something different about this country.  Exactly what, I'm not sure but it's worth thinking about.

One argument I've considered seriously is the conjunction between national identity and religion in France.  What the unchurched and the Catholics here have in common (in my view) is the sense that being an atheist or being a Roman Catholic is compatible with a French identity while being a Protestant Christian or Moslem isn't.  So my hypothesis would be:  for the French who have a deep attachment to a French identity or who feel that this identity is threatened in some way, there are only two plausible socially acceptable religious options:  be a Catholic or be an agnostic/atheist.  All the other possibilities for so many I talk with are simply unthinkable.

I sense a very strong resistance to any sort of religious pluralism here which makes it very difficult for other religions to come in and "compete" in  order to gain converts.   If this is true then that says something about the neutrality opf French society and the state vis a vis organized religion.  It's not religion per se that is the problem, it's other religions that are a threat.

Your thoughts?

Dual Citizens in a Secular Society

"Accordingly, two cities have been formed by two loves: the earthly by the love of self, even to the contempt of God; the heavenly by the love of God, even to the contempt of self. The former, in a word, glories in itself, the latter in the Lord..."

St. Augustine
The City of God

Every Christian is a dual citizen:  he belongs to a "City of Man" and a "City of God."  In both Canada and Europe today there are arguments about the extent to which religious people of all faiths are permitted to openly signal their membership in God's city.

 The example before us today is the Parti Québécois’s Charter of Quebec Values.  This measure would forbid public servants (government workers) from wearing "ostentatious" religious symbols while carrying out their functions.  The argument of the Charter's supporters is that this is necessary to reinforce the state's neutrality with regard to religion:

"cette charte de la laïcité visera notamment à interdire les signes religieux ostentatoires dans la fonction publique, c’est-à-dire que les institutions publiques et les agents travaillant dans ces institutions doivent refléter la neutralité de l’État."

This has provoked a bitter public debate.  My purpose here is not to add to the very good commentary about this charter one can find in any number of on and off-line articles.  (For a good round-up  of what has been said so far about the charter, see Andrew Griffith's fine blog Multicultural Meanderings.)  Instead I would like to broaden the discussion and talk about general efforts in some parts of the world to create (or reinforce) what is referred to as a "secular" society - an ideal world (some say) where religious beliefs no longer have a place in the public sphere and where, as Peter Berger puts it, "signals of transcendence" become rumors, "and not very reputable rumors at that."  

To many Europeans and Canadians (and even some Americans) this is a worthy goal and, in Europe at least, it has been moderately successful.  The recent battles over marriage in France notwithstanding, religious beliefs have much less voice in the public sphere than they had in times past.  It is worth pointing out, however, that when one looks around the world, there is a sort of European exceptionalism at work here.  In many parts of the world  (and especially in the Global South) religious beliefs are part and parcel of the public conversation on all issues and religious affiliation is growing, not shrinking.  Efforts by the Global North to convince such places that they must become less religious in order to become more modern are generally met with skepticism, if not outright contempt. 

Even more interesting is that there is another on-going debate within the world community of Christians (and this one began centuries ago) over the extent to which Christians should be involved in the earthly city and use their faith-based beliefs to weigh in on the pressing social issues of our time. A passion for politics is a passion for things of this world which Christians are asked to think of as transient and inferior to the city of God. Some argue for disengagement - leave Caesar to Caesar. As for signaling one's citizenship in the Heavenly City there is a line of thought that believes that this is a futile exercise. Religious beliefs are best spread by example (or as AA puts it) they prefer attraction to promotion.  A few even believe that complete separation is necessary in order for believers to avoid the taint of their secular neighbors and compatriots.  The last implies a certain common ground between the most rabid of the secularists and their fundamentalist Christian counterparts.

Most people of faith (whatever their affiliation) are not separatists.  Christians, Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus, and all other people of faith who end up in countries where the secular society is taking on the aura of a national project, have to struggle with this daily.  How open can one be about the sources of one's opinions if they are faith-based?  What kinds of religious signals are allowed - not only by law - but within a particular cultural context?    These questions are particularly challenging to those who belong to a minority religion practiced by immigrants or their children.  It is, however, not confined to them.  I am a Roman Catholic in a country that has traditionally been a "daughter of the Church" and even I thought twice before placing a small discreet statue of Mary in the niche on my front porch where it is visible from the street.

This is the "freedom of conscience" touted by democracies like France and Canada?   

This is not about separation of church and state - something that most established churches have discovered works quite well in their favor.  This is a purging of religious discourse and signs from the marketplace of ideas.  What is even more disturbing to me is that in the Global North we live in a context of religious pluralism.  The days when one church or one religion spoke with one institutional voice, controlled the message from the faithful, and were synonymous with the local culture and government are long behind us.  Instead what we see is that these "twin tolerations" (Alfred Stepan) have led to the empowerment of the faithful to speak as individuals and to participate as they see fit in the "City of Man" - the political community in which they reside or in the world.

I believe that the ideal secular society as proposed by some would be an impoverished one.  Even worse, I see a sort of separatism being forced on people of faith who for want of public spaces to express themselves, retreat to their communities, churches/mosques/temples, schools and homes, and let the earthly realm (one that does not seem to value their opinion and strongly condemns the source of them) sort itself out without them.

Furthermore, the attempt to generously allow some religious signs and activities to proceed under the umbrella of "tradition" is one that I am hardly thankful for (even where it graciously permits discreet expression of my religious tradition).  It is a hollowing out, a capture of religion and its symbols, in the name of a national culture, ideology or state.   A cathedral in Montreal is not just another pretty example of local architecture, and a baptism in France is not just a quaint little French custom and an excuse for a family party.  These things are part and parcel of a world religion (among others) which transcends borders and culture.  There is nothing particularly French or Quebecois about Catholicism just as there is nothing strictly American or British about Protestantism, or Indonesian or Saudi Arabian about Islam.

Sending people of faith into internal exile or placing them outside of the plausible public discourses is not a solution to what ails Europe or Canada.  On the contrary there is something very ugly and repressive (dare I say "predatory"?) in making  European or Canadian secular identities the only acceptable basis for conversation (speech and signs) in the public sphere in democratic societies.

Some of us feel called to be dual citizens of the "City of God" and the "City of Man."  Our membership in one should never make us inferior citizens in the other.